Why should anyone's status change by being grateful to a religion. — Gregory A

You miss the point again! I am incredulous at the statements you type, such as the one above.
You think I should be grateful to the most pernicious con tricks in human history such as Christianity and Islam. I would need a book a similar number of pages as the babbling bumbelling bible to list my complaints against horrible doctrines like Christianity and Islam. Have you got it yet?

how does that not make me very aware of a nasty side to evangelism. — Gregory A

And yet, you cant see the very nasty sides of the nasty ways in which humans manipulate all religious doctrines. I know that the best comeback theists can come up with against this is to talk about the nastiness of non-religious systems such as fascism/totalitarianism/autocracies etc, which is total BS. Such systems kill any humans that get in their way. Theism is neither here nor there to such 'cults of narcissistic personalities. Putin IS A THEIST and an autocrat so the labels are not mutually exclusive. The Nazis swore allegiance to Hitler and god, etc, etc. The excuses for humans killing humans are myriad and we must stop scapegoating god(s) and political doctrines for the heinous behaviour and the evil that humans do in their name. NUCLEAR BOMBS DONT KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.
I have no problem with individuals like @EugeneW who have their own personal version of god(s). I will debate them based on my own atheism but such exchanges are ultimately harmless. It only becomes a problem when those who group together in common religious faith want to impose a theistic code or ethics/commandments or BS like sharia law or any educational/political/social directive OF ANY KIND that a whole population must comply with. To me, such directives are like a declaration of war on human progress.

What's atheism and Christianity got to do with each other??? You really have no idea what any of this is about. Your bias makes you unable to look at any of these things in a clinical way. — Gregory A

Again I throw your exasperation with my viewpoint and your claim of 'you really have no idea what any of this is about,' right back at you. It's like asking what's fascism got to do with humanism, what's war got to do with peace? I think the answer is a great deal! If you ignore the rising strength of one then you invite the subjugation of the other. To maintain a healthy balance you MUST be very attentive to both and decide where you think the balance between any two opposing viewpoints should be set. It is unlikely that one will ever eradicate the other completely. On theism vs atheism, I advocate for vast majority atheism and very small theism as I believe this would be most commensurate with human progress towards the goal of global unison. One species on one pale blue dot planet, moving towards interplanetary existence.

Imagine that. Im on the edge of a forrest area, typing about infinity on my phone, while the dog is in fight with a trunk, after she has chased away another dog (shes in heat), and the gods above enjoy it! If that aint philosophical romantics.. — EugeneW

A one with 24 zeros, like for a computerchip, is zero in comparison. — EugeneW

You really think man is able to construct a living 3d structure of neuronlike material, many of which are interlinked, with variable connection strengths — EugeneW

A lot closer than a 1 with 24 zeros! — EugeneW

Your dialogue is based on obfuscation and distraction on this issue, in my opinion, EugeneW.
You gave no response to:

What if we are forced to life, created to live like the gods did?
— EugeneW

Sci-fi shows play with this concept all the time but from the point of sentient lifeforms who existed in our galaxy millions of years before humans. In Babylon 5 they are called the first ones. The Vorlons, The Shadows etc. To us, they would seem like gods, but they are not. Why are these god-like descriptions less likely than the descriptions you have been posting here to describe your version of god(s). Could I replace every mention you have made of god(s) on this thread with 'The Vorlons,' would it change your claims much? Apart from your 'but mine are real and yours are fantasy,' claim. The same claim that the Christians have about the Muslim god or hindu god(s) and vice versa. — universeness

and I know for a fact that computing technology can already surpass the memory capacity and processing speed of a single human brain. So Who knows how far that technology will go, given even another few thousand years of science and scientists. We have already discussed transhumanism in other threads and you know my views on that topic. I fully expect human lifespan to be vastly extended in the future and that there certainly will be more physical merging between humans and technology.
An article I read recently in New Scientist magazine suggests that the first human to live to 150 to 170, is alive today!. I find that much more interesting than your playtime with nonexistent god(s).

For all practical purposes a 1 with 10exp20 is infinite — EugeneW

so what's 1 with a trillion zero's? closer to infinite?

It seems a big enough number to be called infinity — EugeneW

What?? there is no number big enough to be called infinity, that's just mathematical fact!
I have a Computing science honours degree, trust me, Computers can outdo the human brain on processing speed and memory capacity but thats all for now. Computers, no matter how you network them together and no matter what current systems and application software you employ, they cannot currently reproduce the workings of the human brain. We don't even fully understand the working of the human brain yet.

Read good the number I wrote — EugeneW

Your number has nothing to do with the memory capacity of the human brain.
If you want a big number then check out the wikipedia quote below:

In the PBS science program Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, Episode 9: "The Lives of the Stars", astronomer and television personality Carl Sagan estimated that writing a googolplex in full decimal form (i.e., "10,000,000,000...") would be physically impossible, since doing so would require more space than is available in the known universe


and a googolplex is as far away from infinity as 1 is.

Another simple example would be that the storage capacity of the internet is measured at 10^ 24 bytes, or 1 million exabytes. The memory capacity of a single human brain is estimated to be around 2.5 million petabytes.
I exabyte = 1024 petabytes
You can buy a 1 terrabyte SD unit for around £60 from the shops!
1024 of them would be a petabyte of memory capacity and 2.5 million of them would match the above estimated memory capacity of the human brain. This could be achieved NOW for a single supercomputer, if such memory capacity for a single computer was required.

The brain has virtual infinite memory capacity — EugeneW

No it doesn't, its memory capacity is as far away from the infinite as the number 1 is.
A single supercomputer could theoretically employ every hardiisk and/or solid-state memory unit available on the planet, all stacked together, and we can make more and more devices to increase its memory capacity. A single human brain's memory capacity is well defeated.

What if we are forced to life, created to live like the gods did? — EugeneW

Sci-fi shows play with this concept all the time but from the point of sentient lifeforms who existed in our galaxy millions of years before humans. In Babylon 5 they are called the first ones. The Vorlons, The Shadows etc. To us, they would seem like gods, but they are not. Why are these god-like descriptions less likely than the descriptions you have been posting here to describe your version of god(s). Could I replace every mention you have made of god(s) on this thread with 'The Vorlons,' would it change your claims much? Apart from your 'but mine are real and yours are fantasy,' claim. The same claim that the Christians have about the Muslim god or hindu god(s) and vice versa.

About the technological singularity, computers creating life like gods. — EugeneW

The technological singularity is a concern but I think it's unlikely to be any time soon. By Moore's law, on average, computer processing power doubles every two years. The evidence of the rate of improvement in processing power since computing took off in the late 70's demonstrates Moore's law to be pretty accurate. Serial processing is being replaced by parallel processing using many processors on one core. One of the fastest today is the IBM Sequoia in America with a Speed of 17.1 petaFLOPS using
a core of 1,572,864 processors.
As Quantum computers advance, this already incredible speed will be easily surpassed.
So computer speed and storage capacity can easily equal and in fact way surpass the capacity of the human brain but it is not yet as compact and it does not have the operating system capacity or app capacity of the human brain. AI is still not very impressive. We are also very far away from creating a machine with the movement capacity of the human body.
But if we reach a technological point where we create Robots or cyborgs that can fully program and build other machines then the singularity could happen but I think we are clever enough to build in fail safe's to prevent 'Westworld' or 'The terminator' type predictions. I could of course, be dead wrong.

I’ll definitely keep this as advice for the future! What subject(s) did you teach? — Dermot Griffin

Mathematics and Computing Science for the first few years. Full time Computing after that.
I became a marker of the standard grade final exams after delivering the curriculum for about 4 years.
After about 5 years of marking the various levels of standard grade. I became a higher grade marker, after a few years of that, I became an examiner for higher grade, which means you sample and check the marking of other markers. Then I became a setter, which means you write sections of the hgher grade final exam papers, then I did the same at Advanced higher.
Marking final exam papers offers invaluable insight into how pupils are answering questions all over the country which makes you best qualified to write educational materials.

As a secondary school teacher of 30 years before I took early retirement, I had to teach the curriculum content. But I was the only arbiter of how I taught it. Consulting others and listening to the strategies of others is a very good thing to do, as are things like co-op teaching but when the classroom door closes, it's your interpretations that rule!
Working for the education authorities as well would allow you, as it did me, to gain deep insight into the current curriculum and suggest ways to improve its delivery.
This is further enhanced by producing your own materials and offering them to other teachers of your subject and getting their feedback after using them.

I dont ask them to show up! It's you who's crying wolf about that. — EugeneW

It's you!
No it's not me it's you!
No it's not me it's you!.....until we both pass out from the beer! :rofl:

Besides, they have shown themselves! Just look around you! All of life, all organisms. — EugeneW

That's like you taking credit for a house I built.
Evolution and natural selection produced what you cite above not god.

What is it that people are susceptible to that would cause such experiences? — Mike Radford

Primal fear, in my opinion, and hope against nonexistence/oblivion after death, and I believe it is for these reasons that we can dismiss the god posit. Human fear is never a good source of rationality.
Is it not a good thing to encourage our fellows to combat their primal fears and to boldly go......
Do you think that dependence on and deference to (nonexistent) supernatural will is commensurate with human progression and development? Science progresses, Theism has not progressed at all, in my opinion, in the last 10000 years of human civilisations.

Some people take great reassurance from their trust in God. I don't think that we should necessarily disrespect that trust, even if we do not regard the object as reliable. — Mike Radford

I applaud your sentiment here and if during debate, I see signs that I am damaging the psyche of a religious individual or even significantly upsetting them, then I will stop, apologise and desist but I will still make the same points if asked.

In your reference to the Higgs Boson particular you are confusing propositions that are held as hypotheticals and those that are held as a matter of faith. — Mike Radford

Well, I appreciate this 'traditional' viewpoint but I don't subscribe to the idea that the term 'faith' is the exclusive property of theists. I endeavor to change this. I want to claim the word for common use as a human measure of confidence level or belief level regarding an idea.
"I kind of accept/accept/support/believe/have faith that you are a good person/ that the Higgs boson exists. I think this is a perfectly valid use of the word faith, despite any perceived clash with 'propositional hypotheticals'

The truth of philosophical propositions is not a matter of popular belief. Philosophy, like any other discipline, is not a matter of democracy. Those qualified to arbitrate on philosophical claims are those that have had some training in philosophy. — Mike Radford

You further back up your position by what you correctly state above but I am not suggesting the overthrow or disregarding of philosophical academic authority. I just advocate for a stronger repurposing of the term 'faith.' Perhaps in a similar way the homosexuals repurposed the word 'gay.'

On the more general matter of 'faith' or trust in humanity I have always been cautious when it comes to the kindness of strangers. Human beings are equally capable of great intelligence and great stupidity. — Mike Radford

A wise position, especially if you have others who are dependent on your decisions but this is and probably always will be a judgment call. I have personally had a mixed success when initially giving others the benefit of my doubts, so I agree with your 'cautious' approach.

Precisely! They would disturb the natural order, their own creation. Once in a while they succeed but the message is mistaken always — EugeneW

How convenient!
The trouble with your windup hat, is that you are in danger of becoming just another theistic guy who cries 'wolf'/god when no wolf/god, ever appears, after a while, your shouts are ignored.

The problem is, they have created the universe but are not omnipotent — EugeneW

So you are claiming that these gods are powerful enough to create a Universe and creatures such as us within it but they have no ability to physically manifest within it. Yet many of the ancient god stories have god manifesting regularly, all over the planet, by means of 'showers of gold' to 'burning bushes with booming sky voices.' Now they have lost such abilities? This is part of the tall tale you are trying to convince me is factual? Seriously?
The idea that every fantasy story told by Marvel comics is true is more likely than your theistic posits.
Your just 'havin a laugh!'

Godkind want mankind to know to take better care of creation. — EugeneW

Then appear to us in the town squares and say so you cowardly, nonexistent gods!

:smile: Ok

Tell me what you mean by ‘god’ and see if I reject it — I like sushi

I predict you will reject @EugeneW's answer as I would too, but remember, he is a self-confessed leg puller!

Tonight on radio TPF. DJ Steef and Eugene, bringing you the voice of the gods. Directly from the heaven — EugeneW

crrrrrrrrrrrrr, crrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, crrrrrrrrrrrr aw just cant tune-in to any show broadcast from heaven.
maybe them gods is too dumb bums to make a transceiver thingy or may bees theres jist nae body there!

You're my man Stephen! — EugeneW

:smile: see, at least we are still pals!

I haven't yet received a message of him... But maybe he can speak in lightnings only. They try anything to contact us. The situation is getting out of hand. Had they only looked better at those hominid gods... — EugeneW

and you mentioned the word fantasy.......

Then how come this thread is 26 pages — EugeneW

:rofl: I think it's mostly 'little old you and me' causing the main bulk! We hardly constitute a 'popular response from the masses.'

Or around a monster particle accelerator in the sacred church of CERN. — EugeneW

Introducing by popular demand! Philosophical DJ EugeneW :clap: :clap: :pray: :clap: :clap:

I like them too but they are just fantasies... — EugeneW

and Thor?

What did you mean then by us creating a universe for the universe? — EugeneW

I did not type 'us creating the universe,' quote where I typed this?
I typed about humans pursuing new knowledge, in my opinion, adds to the meaning and purpose of the Universe.

Yes. The gods are sentient. Of course. They rest on their backs, wings, centipods, and just watch their creation, projected on the heavenly heavens. They explain and are a mystery at the same time. Why did they eternally make love and hate before they got bored and created the universe? No one knows! — EugeneW

I prefer the Hulk or The Vision or Dr Strange for my personal entertainment.

Is being sentient a pre for worshipping? — EugeneW

Well, I am sure some are happy just walking around and around a big rock in Mecca!

But the arrogance that leads to presumptions like this above is unbelievable — Gregory A

It's your naivety that is unbelievable!

have been aware of evangelist types since the 70's (the documentary 'Marjoe', Jim Bakker in the 80's — Gregory A

If you watched a documentary about evanhellical nasties like Jim and Tammy Baker, then perhaps you fell asleep or were not paying attention or.........as you forgot to condemn them as the horrors that they are.
An appeal to Christ means nothing to me as I don't think he ever existed.
I recommend you read Creating Christ by James Valliant or Caesar's Messiah by Joe Atwill or alternatively the works of Dr Richard Carrier. These might help you progress a little.

You have a responsibility towards the universe. Sounds like worshiping a god. — EugeneW

It sounds nothing like worshipping a god to me. The Universe is not sentient. Is YOUR god sentient?

Why should we do that? What meaning and purpose does She demand of you? — EugeneW

We do that which we are capable of doing as an act of common will. There is no Universal identity based on an anthropomorphic she, there are only the lifeforms produced by naturalism.

Again, this is repeat mode. I have already clarified my stance on panpsychism and cosmopsychism. You were the main contributor to my thread on it so you know fine well that I have no more that a passing interest in it. My main view at present is that I see little value in talking about 'outside of the Universe.'
I am a fan of string theory and Mtheory but I have no powerful loyalty to any origin theory for the Universe.

Atheist pano talk. On the same level as ordinary theist panto talk used by jehova freaks. — EugeneW

Fair enough, if that's how you feel.

You do the same: in the name of some universal non-existing being, the hydra universa. — EugeneW

No I don't, if you are referring to some kind of panpsychism then I have raised no mor that a small eyebrow twitch towards such. Your invoked image of a multi-headed nonexisting beast add nothing to your point.

It's useless. You don't believe they are there. Whatever rows your boat. I know they're there.. — EugeneW

If you agree it's useless then stop contributing to it. If you have no new points to raise and you don't think I have any new points for your consideration then you can do as I did earlier in this exchange and declare impasse. I remain a fan EugeneW, but based on this exchange, I am now convinced that in truth, your theism is even more speculative than my twitch towards panpsychism. Your theism just gnaws at you more due to your more, in my opinion. impetuous and mischievous nature.

I know it's true. And it fits exactly the universe needed by the gods. It was a huge effort. The whole of the godkind was involved in finding the right two particles and the space for them to exist eternally and over and over again (where did I hear that before). The particles of love and hate evolving in the almost infinite scala of beings, organisms, creatures.

Why should you be afraid of such gods? — EugeneW

Let's try to reduce the amount of repetition between us.

What's the use of that? Or better, the meaning? — EugeneW

By doing so we can give more meaning and purpose to the Universe, instead of assigning such a responsibility to a nonexistent supernatural. As a human being, you need to take responsibility for your own existence and your own actions, stop scapegoating supernatural gods. What happens on this planet is down to human behavior not the behavior or perceived will of god(s).
Scapegoating god(s) is evidence that the human race still has a lot of growing up to do.
The word 'adult' is inappropriately awarded, in my opinion, it should have to be consistently earned through demonstration.

I mean: why should you fear gods? — EugeneW

I don't as they don't exist but humans traditionally fear that which is presented to them as much more powerful than they are because such can kill them no matter what kind of resistance they can muster. it's the type of primal fear I have often referred to and its why some people turn to theism or religion to promise compliance with the perceived will of such ID manifestations. This is exactly what nefarious organised religious doctrines are able to manipulate and is the basic source of the divine right of kings and popes(a.k.a Roman Emperor). Such nasty humans promise to intercede between you and god so you will be looked after, mainly AFTER YOU ARE DEAD!

What's the use of that? Or better, the meaning? I already know how the universe works. So? No big deal... — EugeneW

That's not how it works, as well you know, (take off that windup merchant hat now and then), your hypothesis has not currently progressed from the posit stage. Your 'faith' in it has limited currency value.

Why should you fear something that does exist? — EugeneW

What?? Lions exist, do you fancy a one-on-one fight with one?
Your fists and legs against its teeth and claws? No fear of such eh?
Samson is also a fable!

They dont want us to behave in any morally prescribed way. They dont want us to believe in them. — EugeneW

What non-existent beings want has no relevance at all (let's get ready to panto! Can you resist the temptation?)

What meaning has life without them? And I dont mean loving your fellow men or being happy walking in the park with my dog. — EugeneW

Two good examples, add to it anything else that human consciousness can come up with.
If you wait for your god to tell you you will have to do a lot more dreaming.
How about 'to pursue knowledge of that which we currently have no knowledge of,' and 'to boldly go where no one has gone before,' etc.

I don't take gods seriously too. But they give meaning to our existence and the universe. — EugeneW

Perhaps for you, if you say so but then you are a leg puller, a windup merchant by your own admission so.......:naughty:

Why? — EugeneW

Because humans should care about other humans because we are all humans and we can decide that it should be so, we don't need a god fable to provide our moral code or our ethics.

This shows your unconscious fear of god! — EugeneW

:rofl: total BS. Why would I fear that which does not exist?

How can a message from the gods be premeditated? — EugeneW

I am suggesting that the premeditation is your, not a gods.

I think you like the role of Devil's advocate. You may be a leg puller, a windup merchant.
— universeness


Now here you might be right! Though I dont believe in the devil — EugeneW

That about does it for me EugeneW. I can no longer take your claim to be a theist seriously.

↪universeness

F****** heaven is actually a pretty good description!

I think though that your view of gods is pretty subjective here! With such a god (God!) I can understand turning atheist! — EugeneW

I missed this one. I do not blame the god fable for the religions created by nefarious humans who wish to become rich and powerful by manipulating the primal fears of their fellow humans.
I was merely trying to highlight the pernicious intent of the majority of today's organised religions to @Gregory I am sure he is already aware of such but I think it's always an important point to stress.
I know that many many many religious folks and groups such as the salvation army perform acts of altruism on a daily or even hourly basis. I am just saddened by the fact that they see such acts, as originating from their theism instead of where it should come from, in my opinion, their humanism.
'Heavenly rewards AFTER YOU ARE DEAD!' weaponised mainly by the nefarious leaders of religious doctrines and is disseminated by their puppet facilitators. Like popes and priests or arch bishops and bishops and ministers or Ron LHubbards facilitators of scientology or ......the list is big.....far too freaking big......

On the basis of liking the gods and not liking them? — EugeneW

No, you know I am a fan EugeneW but I am moving towards the opinion that you are naturally mischievous.
You have a good sense of humour but there is a darker side I think.
I think you like the role of Devil's advocate. You may be a leg puller, a windup merchant.
Your theism could well be almost a caricature of theists you have encountered in your past.
You have no religion,

Deference is to much. — EugeneW

You have no deference to your god(s). You demonstrate none of the expected theistic behaviors, you merely CLAIM to believe in god(s) but you don't exemplify personal behaviors in support of your claim.
I am therefore left with the thought that you are role-playing/caricaturing, because you get a buzz out of mixing your empirical scientist/theist incompatibility. It may even be a pre-meditated act to caricature communication with god(s) to show how evanhellicals, for example, earn their money.
You may even be doing this subconsciously, without truly realising it.
You will probably claim this is just psychobabble on my part but I am not so sure.